To:V. S. VOITINSKY

Published:First published in 1938 in the journalBolshevikNo. 2.

      Sent from Cracow to Irkutsk.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1977],

      Moscow,Volume 43,

      pages367b-370a.Translated:Martin Parker and Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

20/XII. 1913

Rethe articleyou recommendedforpublication.

DearColleague,

Ireceived the article “For a Common
			       Banner”[1]and in all honesty I must say that it is no good at all. Frankness and
candour above all—don’t you agree?

Theauthor has absolutely failed to understand the state of affairs in
Russia and has let himself be carried away—to put it more mildly—by a
spirit of, let us say, excessive amicability towards the Gothamite
Mensheviks.

Russiais going through a process of restoration and consolidation of
the Marxist workers’ party. The discussions and resolutions, which raise
in the author such a short sighted sneer, are of tremendous educative and
organisational significance. The author’s ironical reference to the
“Hurray shouting” is sheerliberalirony, the irony of an
intellectual who is completely out of touch with the working-class
movement. How is it that innoother oppositionparty in Russia do the local groups of party members openly discuss the
party’s internal differences?? Eh??

Theauthor adheres to a sort of sentimentally hysterical point of
view. The resolutions represent an all-important process of consolidation
of theworkers’party, for no one in the world canmakethe workerschoosebetween two hurrahs (that of the partyists and
that of the liquidators) other thanconscioussympathy and a
sorting out of trends. To allow the somewhat rude form of proletarian
“brawl” to screen the tremendous ideological and organisational
significance of the working class’s struggle over two trends, is phenomenal
blindness. I can think of no better explanation of this blindness than the
fact that the author is completely out of touch and has “fallen under the
spell” of the vile Menshevik gang.

Theauthor has absolutely failed to understand the reference to the
worker curia. 47%–50%–67 % in the 2nd, 3rd and
			      4th Dumas.[2]Is that a fact ornot??What has the “reactionary nature of the
curias” (about which the crooks and the Burenins shout from the columns ofNovaya Rabochaya Gazeta, drawing a red herring across the path)
got to do with it?? Did not the same reactionary law, meaning the same
curia law, apply in all three cases? Even an infant would understand that
the reactionary nature of the curias has nothing to do with it. The fact
remains that the intelligentsia have cleared off (and good riddance to the
whores) and the workers have found their own feet against the
liquidators. A new historical period. A new epoch. Yet the author invents a
“middle line”—it would be funny were it not so sad. The author has not
understood one-hundredth of the depth of the struggle against the
liquidators. The Partycannotbe restored unless it is restoredagainstthe liquidators. The workers have grasped this now
themselves.

Fora month, from 20.X to 2.XI—4,800signatures(N.B.) for
the six and 2,500 forthe seven(including 1,000 Bundist
signatures. N.B.!  N.B.!). Is that a fact or not?? This is a fact, sir, and
not intellectualist whining! It is not a party, if you please, since they
have no “common” organisation,no “congress”!!! Ha-ha!!Nor will there beanything in common
with the liquidators and Bundists—it is time to understand this instead
of contemplating the old that is gone and done with. A congress is
extremely difficult to call (hence thewreckersof the Party refer
things “to a congress”, sort of ad kalendas graecas!). Thesesignatures, as it happens, represent thenewform of the
old party. Fancy not being able to understand this!

Theold national “federation of the worst type”has gone for
good. This is another thing the author does not understand.

Theauthor has a wrong idea of equality between the 6 and 7 (he is
wrong to talk about the 8, since the Partydoes notrecognise the
eighth as a
			   Social-Democrat[3]).

Why shouldn’t the Party grant equality to thenear-Party group in the
			     Duma??[4]The author has not understood the serious significance of the conception
“near-Party people”.

Ourjournal is not a literary miscellany, but a militant organ. There
can be no question, therefore, of publishing the article. I would be very
glad, however, to see the author’s retort to my criticism, as I would
generally welcome any exchange of opinions with old friends. If I have come
it too strong with this criticism and expressed myself sometimes none too
politely, I beg his pardon. I can assure him I had no intention of being
offensive, but simply, for old friendship’s sake, unburdened myself and
said what I thought with open-hearted candour.

Howsplendidly the campaign for the six against the seven is going!
What a wonderful rallying and education of the workers against the liberal
labour politicians! What an excellent example, the first in Russia, of the
workers’ party actuallydecidingthe fate ofits ownrepresentation in the Duma! This is no longer a crowd “who have done a
little reading”, but an organised force. The conference decided—the six
acted—the organised thousands approved by discussing and signing—that
is called apartyagainst that rag of a paper, the new edition of
the oldTovarishch,Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta, which is fouling and poisoning the
working-class movement with its intellectualist muck. And how splendidly
the workers’ Duma group has developed its activities! Right away a step
forward not only in name, but in all its work! What an excellent speech,
that of Badayev’s, on the freedom of coalition, compared with the iteration
of shoddy liberal ideas by Tulyakov!

Aurevoir, dear comrade. Spit on the Mensheviks more often, study thefactsof the present-day labour movement, weigh their
significance, and your—begging your pardon—moping mood will pass;
instead of searching for a “middle line”, you will help to rally the
workers against the gang of traitors.

[1]Thisarticle was sent in by Voitinsky for publication in the journalProsveshcheniye.—Ed.

[2]Consecutivegrowth in the number of Bolsheviks in the worker curias in
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Dumas.—Ed.

[3]Thisrefers to Y. I. Jagiello.—Ed.

[4]Thisdoes not bind the Party in any way; and itcaneducate
the near-Party people.  —Lenin